Biomedical Ethics Essay

Alan Goldmans piece, A refutal of Medical Paternalism, contains an crinkle for why checkup paternalism is wrong. Goldman argues from the supposition of The Relativity of Value. Explain this particular argumentation and delegate how it is an argument against medical paternalism (be sure to first define what medical paternalism is). Do you think this argument is correct? Why or why non?In biomedical ethics, the concept of unhurried autonomy versus is a huge consideration. This autonomy is often contrasted with what is c aloneed medical paternalism. Medical paternalism refers to physicians acting in regards to what they relish is best for the unhurried of without much regard to the patients aline wishes. It is the intervention of an exclusives right of action justified by reasons referring to the welfare and/or interest of that individual. small-arm medical paternalism whitethorn be attendn as positive, many refute it. In Goldmans paper, A Refutation of Medical Paternali sm, he talks about why medical paternalism is wrong.Goldman refutes medical paternalism by introducing various arguments that support his case. One aspect of his argument lies in the following claim regarding the relativity of cheers The fundamental faulty set forth in the argument for paternalistic role differentiation for doctors is that which assumes that health or prolonged behavior must take absolute priority in the patients value orderings (67). Goldman states that in reality, individuals do not consistently act in order to minimize loss of life although the long preference is to live long. If individuals did prioritize minimum loss of life constantly, all efforts would be strictly directed towards health-related areas. This is not the case, for to realize or keep open those values that give meaning to life is worth the risk of life itself (68). Therefore, Goldman states that it is illogical for a doctor to determine what is best for the patient when such(prenominal) doct or canisternot speak for what the patients set of values and priorities.While a doctor believes health is procedure one in priority, the individual may not always hold health as number one at all times. The second aspect to Goldmans argument is centered on the value of self-determination. He argues that, as stated before, a doctor cannot truly make do the true interests of his patient, and attimes, the patient may or may not even know his or her avouch interests. Because of this uncertainty, the doctor is less likely than the patient to make the right decision. We value the exercise of free choice itself in in person important decisions, no matter what the effects of those decisions upon other satisfactions (70). When choices are important to our lives, we like to know we have the ability to have some control over them. When a doctor holds the reigns of a patients well macrocosm without the patients say, it is hard to say that the decision made is fair. I personally concur wit h Goldman and the arguments he presents. I can see both sides to the argument I can see why medical paternalism can be beneficial in some cases, but I can see why overall it is a basic intervening of an individuals autonomy.In the defense of medical paternalism, one can argue that it is expect of the medical practitioner to do what is best for his or her patient. However, as Goldman states, what does the practitioner know of what is best for a patient? For example, a patient may be in need for a blood transfusion. Yet if the patient happens to be a follower of the Jehovahs Witness, the physician cant possibly force the patient to take the transfusion, for it directly goes against the patients beliefs. I believe that although doctors may medically have an idea as to what is best for an individual, what is important is for the individual to comply, for it is his or her body that is being affected.